I.

Jose and Erica, former sweethearts, both worked as sales representatives for Magna, a
multinational firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products.
Although the couple had already broken off their relationship, Jose continued to have
special feelings for Erica.
One afternoon, Jose chanced upon Erica riding in the car of Paolo, a co-employee and
Ericas ardent suitor; the two were on their way back to the office from a sales call on
Silver Drug, a major drug retailer. In a fit of extreme jealousy, Jose rammed Paolos car,
causing severe injuries to Paolo and Erica. Joses flare up also caused heavy damage
to the two company-owned cars they were driving.
(A) As lawyer for Magna, advise the company on whether just and valid grounds exist to
dismiss Jose. (4%)
(B) Assuming this time that Magna dismissed Jose from employment for cause and you
are the lawyer of Jose, how would you argue the position that Joses dismissal was
illegal? (4%)
(A) There are just causes to to dismiss Jose. The act of willfully wrecking a company-owned vehicle
assigned to Jose constitutes serious misconduct and willful breach of the trust and confidence
reposed in him by Magna, both of which are grounds for termination under Article 282 of the Labor
Code. A high degree of trust and confidence is reposed on a sales representative, who must protect
the name, business and property of the company. As a sales representative, Jose is expected to
preserve the properties entrusted to him, including the company vehicle.
(B) There is no just case for terminating Jose. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides the following
just causes for termination: (i) serious misconduct or willful disobedience of lawful orders; (ii) gross
and habitual neglect of duties; (iii) loss of trust and confidence; (iv) offense against the person of
employer; and (v) analogous cases. It could not be willful disobedience because there is no proof of
the lawful order the employer has the burden of proof and all doubts resolved in favor of labor. It
could not be neglect of duties because it has not been shown that it is habitual. There is no loss of
trust and confidence because the employer failed to show the extent of duties and level of trust
reposed in Jose. It could not be a crime against the person of the employer because what is involved
is a car. There are no analogous grounds.
II
Gamma Company pays its regular employees P350.00 a day, and houses then in a
dormitory inside its factory compound in Manila. Gamma Company also provides them
with three full meals a day.
In the course of a routine inspection, a Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Inspector noted that the workers pay is below the prescribed minimum wage of
P426.00 plus P30.00 allowance, and thus required Gamma Company to pay wage
differentials.
Gamma Company denies any liability, explaining that after the market value of the
company-provided board and lodging are added to the employees P350 cash daily
wage, the employees effective daily rate would be way above the minimum pay
required by law. The company counsel further points out that the employees are aware
that their food and lodging form part of their salary, and have long accepted the
arrangement.
Is the companys position legally correct? (8%)
No, the companys position is legally untenable.
Before the value of such facilities as food and lodging can be deducted from their
salaries, the following requirements must be satisfied first:
a.) proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade;
b.) the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the
employee; and
c.) facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value.
In this case, there being no proof that the above requisites have been substantially
satisfied, the companys position must necessarily fail.
IV
Bobby, who was assigned as company branch accountant in Tarlac where his family
also lives, was dismissed by Theta Company after anomalies in the companys
accounts were discovered in the branch. Bobby filed a complaint and was ordered
reinstated with full backwages after the Labor Arbiter found that he had been denied
due process because no investigation actually took place.
Theta Company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and at
the same time wrote Bobby, advising him to report to the main company office in Makati
where he would be reinstated pending appeal. Bobby refused to comply with his new
assignment because Makati is very far from Tarlac and he cannot bring his family to live
with him due to the higher cost of living in Makati.
(A) Is Bobbys reinstatement pending appeal legally correct? (4%)
(B) Advise Bobby on the best course of action to take under the circumstances. (4%)
A) Yes, reinstatement pending appeal is correct. Order of reinstatement is immediately
executory, even pending appeal.
B. Bobby can demand that he shall be admitted back to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal. Although the transfer of an employee is a
management prerogative, it should not be exercised in bad faith as a form of penalty.
A transfer of work assignment without any justification therefor, even if respondent
would be presumably doing the same job with the same pay, cannot be deemed faithful
compliance with the reinstatement order. Pfizer case, 2011

III
Inter-Garments Co. manufactures garments for export and requires its employees to
render overtime work ranging from two to three hours a day to meets its clients
deadlines. Since 2009, it has been paying its employees on overtime an additional 35%
of their hourly rate for work rendered in excess of their regular eight working hours.
Due to the slowdown of its export business in 2012, Inter-Garments had to reduce its
overtime work; at teh same time, it adjusted the overtime rates so that those who
worked overtime were only paid an aditional 25% instead of the previous 35%. To
replace the workersovertime rate loss, the company granted a one-time 5% across-the-
board wage increase.
Vigilant Union, the rank-and-file bargaining agent, charged the company with Unfair
Labor Practice on the ground that (1) no consultations had been made on who would
render overtime work; and (2) the unilaterial overtime pay rate reduction is a violation of
Article 100 (entitled Prohibition Against Elimination or Diminution of Benefits) of the Labor
Code.
Is the union position meritorious? (8%)
No as to (1). Its a management prerogative on
on who among its employees should render
overtime work.
It depends No (2).
In this particular case, the employer has been paying
more than that required by Art. 87, it can only be
claimed as violating Artical 100 (Prohibition Against
Elimination of Diminution of Benefits) if the following
criteria are met in order to prove that such benefit
has ripened into company practice:
1. The act of the employer has been done
for a considerable period of time.
(Thus far, jurisprudence has not laid down anyext or
definitive rule requiring a specific minimum number
of years.)
2. The act should be done consistently
and intentionally.
3. The act should not be a product of
erroneous interpretation or construction of
a doubtful or difficult question of law
or provision in the CBA.
Referenced Laws/Legal Principles:
Principle of non-elimination or
non-diminution of benefits as applied
to wages:
This principle mandates that the reduction or diminution
of withrawal by employers of any benefits, supplements
or payments as provided in existing laws, individual
agreements or collective bargaining agreements between works
and employers or voluntary employer practice or policy,
is not allowed.
Labor Code
Art. 87. Overtime work. Work may be performed beyond
eight (8) hours a day provided that the employee is
paid for the overtime work, an additional compensation
equivalent to his regular wage plus at least twenty-five
percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond eight hours
on a holiday or rest day shall be paid an additional
compensation equivalent to the rate of the first eight
hours on a holiday or rest day plus at least thirty percent
(30%) thereof.
V
Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint but awarded Cris financial assistance. Only the company
appealed from the Labor Arbiters ruling. It confined its appeal solely to the question of
whether financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead of ruling solely on
the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor Arbiters decision; it found Baker Company
liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the payment of separation pay and full
backwages.
Through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker Company
challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It argued that the NLRC acted with grave
abuse of discretion when it ruled on the illegal dismissal issue, when the only issue
brought on appeal was the legal propriety of the financial assistance award.
Cris countered that under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the authority
to correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in
form in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Decide the case. (8%)
which are raised on appeal. As a consequence thereof, any other issues which were
not included in the appeal shall become final and executory. luna case, 2011
Alternate: The NLRC ruling is valid.
Although it is a well-settled rule in Remedial law that appellate courts may only consider
the issues raised on appeal, technical rules, however, do not apply in labor cases.
By express provision of the Labor Code (Art. 218 (c)), the NLRC may look into other
issues of the case even if they were not raised on appeal. Therefore, the NLRC did not
rule with grave abuse of discretion.

I. The parties to a labor dispute can validly submit to voluntary arbitration ___________.
(1%)
(A) any disputed issue they may agree to voluntarily arbitrate
(B) only matters that do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
(C) any disputed issue but only after conciliation at the National Concililation and
Mediation Board fails
(D) any disputed issue provided that the Labor Arbiter has not assumed jurisdiction over
the case on compulsory arbitration
(E) only matters relating to the interpretation or implementation of a collective
bargaining agreement.